Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Jay Herrera

474 F.2d 1049

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1973-04-03
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • “This Court has consistently held that a federal prisoner is not entitled to obtain copies of court records at the government’s expense to search for possible defects merely because he is an indigent.”
  • summarily affirming the district court’s denial of a defendant’s motion to obtain a trial transcript at government expense where the lower court had characterized defendant’s request for the transcript as a “fishing expedition”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Jay Herrera. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
16 opinions
UNITED STATES v. HERRERA,474 F.2d 1049(5th Cir. 1973)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. JAY HERRERA,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 73-1321.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
February 28, 1973.
Rehearing Denied April 3, 1973.
Jay Herrera, pro se.

Anthony J. P. Farris, U.S. Atty., Houston, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Before GEWIN, COLEMAN and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] The United States moves to have the appeal dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 20.1We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.2

[2] Appellant filed a motion in the district court seeking to obtain a copy of his trial transcript in order to examine it to prepare an attack on his conviction collaterally. The district court denied the motion on grounds that the transcript is not available for a "fishing expedition." This appeal followed.

[3] This Court has consistently held that a federal prisoner is not entitled to obtain copies of court records at the government's expense to search for possible defects merely because he is an indigent. Cowan v. United States, 5th Cir. 1971,445 F.2d 855; Brown v. United States, 5th Cir. 1971,438 F.2d 1385; Bennett v. United States, 5th Cir. 1971,Page 1050437 F.2d 1210; Skinner v. United States, 5th Cir. 1970,434 F.2d 1036. Therefore, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

[4] Appeal dismissedPage 1051
  1. If upon the hearing of any interlocutory motion or as a result of a review under Rule 17, it shall appear to the court that the appeal is frivolous and entirely without merit, the appeal will be dismissed without the notice contemplated in Rule 18. See Nevels v. McCall, 5th Cir. 1969,407 F.2d 390, and United States v. Minor, 5th Cir. 1971,444 F.2d 521. ↩
  2. It is appropriate to dispose of this case summarily. See Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. Davis, 5th Cir. 1969,406 F.2d 1158. ↩